SCOTT MANSFIELD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Scott Mansfield appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion seeking post-conviction relief based on Hurst v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to make findings necessary to impose the death penalty. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Mansfield's death sentence because it became final in 2001.
Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to Mansfield's sentence of death because his sentence became final in 2001, before the Hurst decision. Therefore, Mansfield is not entitled to relief under Hurst or related claims.
[1] The Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. …
[2] A motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 may be denied when a controlling precedent case dictates that the defendant…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Mansfield's sentence of death.”
Establishes the core holding that Hurst is not retroactive to sentences that became final before the Hurst decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott Mansfield was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. His death sentence became final in 2001. Mansfield filed…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hurst V. Florida Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Scott Mansfield's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Mansfield's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Mansfield's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst) , 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Mansfield's appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , *60--- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock , Mansfield responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
Because Mansfield's response to the order to show cause appeared to raise issues independent of Hurst , we issued an order directing briefing on the "non- Hurst related issues." Having reviewed Mansfield's initial brief, the State's answer brief, and Mansfield's reply brief, we conclude that Mansfield has not raised any issue that does not depend on the retroactive application of Hurst and that Mansfield is not entitled to relief.1 Mansfield was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. Mansfield v. State , 758 So.2d 636, 642 (Fla. 2000). Mansfield's sentence of death became final in 2001. Mansfield v. Florida , 532 U.S. 998, 121 S.Ct. 1663, 149 L.Ed.2d 644 (2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Mansfield's sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Mansfield's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Mansfield, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
CANADY, C.J., concurs in result.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.
Because Mansfield's jury's recommendation for death was unanimous, he would not be entitled to Hurst2 relief if Hurst applied retroactively to his case. Therefore, I agree that he is not entitled to relief. As to retroactivity, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock .3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- Hurst v. Florida., 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)
- Florida v. Hurst., 137 S. Ct. 2161 (U.S. 2017)
- Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017)
- Rainey v. Dist. Attorney Off. of Philadelphia., 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)
- Mansfield v. State, 758 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2000)
- Ward v. Neal, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (U.S. 2017)
- Boone v. Lorie Davis, 137 S. Ct. 2163 (U.S. 2017)
- Loud v. Lorie Davis, 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)
- Allen v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2017)